Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-01-25
Why There Should He a Draw i'm the
Aque1luct Bridge.

To the Editor Of The EVENING STAR:
In your issue OF Saturday last find communi.
cation from Mr.. Louis E. Phillips discussing the
uselessness OF draw in the new bridge to be con-
structed on the Alexandria AQueduct piers and
rdiculing Col. Hams suggestion that bridge at
that point without a draw would be an obstruction
to navigation, etc.
ALI army engineers in charge Of river improve
ments are required tby act approved July s. 1sSN,
1y bridges, causeWays or other structures and
COL Hams could scarcely do less in reporting that
me construction OF bridge without draw on the
AQueduct piers would be an obstruction to nay1ga
ton, when he knows that such bridge spans the
Potomac river where it is nav1gable for more than
that the development OF One OF the best and among
the few water powers situated on tide water, has
been for years retarded by the obstruction across
the port OF Georgetown. Mr.. Phillips writes land
so do others as II Congress in passing the bill for
free bridge had only one object in view, VIZ the
Dal1aing q u 0age Wholly and solely for the
Virginia known as "CoOney;" that the opening of
the navigation OF that part Of the Potomac river
OF for moment, and that a delay OF one day in
the building OF bridge might cause the loss OF a
barrel Of potatoes OF box Of grapes.
The harbOr commission of 1872 consisting of
the highest engineer officer in the United States
and superintendent OF the coast survey and other
officers standing high in the United States service
besides the then governor OF the District and other
civilians, reported strongly in favor OF Kidding
the harbor OF such an obstruction as the Alexan-
harbOr line extending along the District shore OF
the Potomac OF $500 front feet above the Aque-
duct. NJ Phillips is correct in his statement that
Judge Cartier OF the District courts, decided that
the Alexandria canal aQueduct was legal struc-
ture, it being authorized by acts Of May 26 1880,
and July "a, 1868, and that a draw could not be
put in an aqueduct without destroying IT,
But the case Is entirely different now. The
United states has purchased and abandoned the
canal aqueducL, and thus has done what il could
to resc1nd an iniqu1tOus act ON our community
from which we have been suffering for nearly fifty
years MI; Phillips forgot to state that draw
was provided for in the bridge act Of 1881, passed
by both Houses and approved by the President,
and again in acts which passed the Senate May 6,
no assertion Of egal STRUCTURE or mot guilty" in
criminal case can be pleaded against such ex-
presslons OF legislative Judgment.
1t Is also true that the word ''draw" was Dur
pOsey stricken out of the act OF June 1885 1t being
believed that when Congress purchased the fee
simple title to both the Alexandria canal COM
pany rights in the piers and approaches and the
Alexandria bridge company rights to the bridge
and its lease-hold OF the piers, etc. and the United
States became the owner in fee there would then
be no further antagonism to a draw and the open-
ing OF navigation above.
1t was thought best, during the latter part OF
tty OF Alexandria and its friends who were fight
ing for the retention OF the (useless) canal, That
The word draw should be stricken out Of the bill
(and 1t waSdOne at the instance OF the Virginia
senator who was the promoter Of the measure
and has always been the friend Of this community
and rely upon the nberality and justice OF Con-
greSS IN constructing draw when the bridge was
built. 1t Is well known fact TO the people OF the
District and to none more than to the editors OF
its journals, how long and persiStently the Alex
andria interest kept back the carrying out OF the
bill OF June, 1886, and that it was not until the
last day OF grace given by the bill, and the last
hour on that day, that the Secretary OF War was
enabled to complete the purchase, nor would
they have ever agreed to sell it out but for the
fact that free bridge would have been built at
the "Three Sisters site, which would have at once
done away with the only revenue left to the Alex
andria Canal and Bridge company and that its
own structure was about to tOpple In the river.
It can scarcely be presumed that while Congress
Is apprODriating millions yearly for the removal OF
distractions to navigation that it win hesitate to
Hafns to give access to and aid in the develop
ment OF an interest which Will tend so largely TO
building up this section Of the District. 1t seems
to me that Col Hams recommendation has been
entirely miscOnStrued. He says emphatically that
bridge can be built for the residue OF the appro-
priatton, VIZ, $1O OO0 but to do this he must form
an "earth embankment approach" on the Virginia
S1de instead OF an iron trestle approach, and,
understand it, do no repairs to the piers.
Col. Hams also distinctly says that II the adGi-
uOnal appropriation be made by March 4th next
'tsuch cnange in the plans would not cause any
appreciate delay in the reconstruction"
l fully agree that a bridge is necessity for
numbers OF interests. but must urge that SO i'm
pOrtant an interest the navigation OF the river
should not be sacrificed.
No one can doubt that Congress will at some day
put draw in this bridge Should not therefore
all interests combine to have it placed there now
as any effort to have the work done after the COM
pletion OF the bridge will cause three times the
StructiOn at this time. GEORGETOwN
January %, 1887.